Now they say it does not tend to sanctification. But man is not a judge of this; he would still be sanctifying the church in his own way. I am persuaded that God never revealed anything without a sanctifying purpose for His nature is holy, His purpose holiness; and I believe the sober and holy study of the word of God, as such, in His fear, will concentrate the affections upon Him, separate from the world, and give enlarged views Of His kingdom, wisdom, and glory, peculiarly calculated to sink in our estimation this world—its glory, its strength; and to fix our minds on the Lamb's glory. There is in fact in these objections a tendency to depreciate the purposes of God in scripture, to preserve the importance of man's little sphere of views.
On the other hand, the extreme precipitancy with which the subject has been taken up has led—which has given occasion to this part of the charge—to unjust estimate of the use, and value, and seasonable application of those truths. Men have sought to please themselves, instead of edifying themselves or their neighbors. Let men either inquire humbly, using God's word to God's purposes, or else refrain from seeking to affect the minds of others. Loquacity or forwardness on religious subjects is a great hindrance to real edification. “If any man speak; let him speak as the oracles of God,” as those who have something to say on God's behalf, or else use the modesty which becomes those who only seek for truth. One other complaint is to be made against those who oppose these views, and it is a serious one. Instead of weighing what has been advanced by others in the spirit of serious inquiry, separating the chaff from the wheat, and willing to see the use which God might make of their brethren's testimony; jealous of the tone which they assumed, and hurt by their charges against them, they irritably throw the whole of their views overboard, without inquiring what the scripture itself says upon the subject; and then, to justify themselves, endeavored all they could to show, in the darkest colors, every part of the system, and bring up reasons against the whole. But if there be any truth in these things, they are defrauding themselves; and it is a poor compensation to prove their brethren wrong.
In many things alas! we are divided enough—enough exposed to the enemy not to be opposed to one another in our very hopes. Surely they should give some just sense, if they think those to whom they are opposed in the wrong. For my own part, if I were bound to receive all that has been said by the Millennarians, I should reject the whole system; but their views and statements weigh with me not one feather. But this does not hinder me from, inquiring by the teaching of the same Spirit (which in measure, I believe, directed them) what God has with infinite graciousness revealed to me concerning His dealings with the church.
I confess the modern Writers on prophecy justly chargeable with following their own thoughts hastily, and far too much removed from the control of scripture. They have got some general view, perhaps sound, of God's purpose. They take some text or prophecy as a starting-point, pursue the suggestions of their own minds in connection with their general views previously adopted, but leave the results almost entirely untried by the direct testimony of the word, affording us theories, often enlarging when by a writer much imbued with scripture, often of general soundness of view though replete with false statements: but, when not by such a writer, diverging into absurdities calculated to awaken the impatience of many and bring the truth of all into dishonor. In the meanwhile the church is distracted. There is not a single writer whose writings I have seen (unless it be the author of one short inquiry) who is not chargeable with this fault. Some of the most confident really call for much reprobation. But good, I am persuaded, will grow out of it; and the very difficulties will call, under God's Spirit, the attention of the faithful servant of God. And while the precipitancy of the others will be repressed by the distinct manifestation of the error into which it has led thorn and the calm statement of truth, those who have hitherto rejected even inquiry will yield themselves to much they have scorned, and be humbled both to the acknowledgment of a common truth and of the spiritual sincerity of many against whom they have been bitter, because they could not convince them, when in truth it was their own fault. I would call upon the servants of God to pray that He would guide and direct His church by His Spirit in these things in sober and subdued meekness, and it will surely be led into all truth. I shall take notice (with this feeling) of some things which seem to me illustrative of the unguarded, unscriptural statements, many of which, I think, have dishonored scripture, and been spoken ignorantly; and, I shall, secondly, propose some grounds of inquiry, to those who have hitherto repudiated these views.
These views trench upon many habits in which religions teachers have for the most part been formed—many views in which they have long had their boast. No man likes to give up these: their relative consequence is lost; it is distinguishing to oppose them. “No man, having drunk old wine, straightway desireth new, for he saith, The old is better:” Many of the subjects mentioned in the foregoing pages are of themselves of deep interest, much as the use of prophecy generally, and materially affecting the present views of men on the subject; but it has not been attempted to dwell upon them at length here: other occasions, or a better instrument, perhaps, may draw them out into more useful and instructive relief. My object is unpretending and simple, and I pursue it at once: it has been some time on my mind, though withheld hitherto.
The observations on the ἀνάστασις ἐκ τῶν νεκρπων, published in the Christian Examiner (sound in criticism, and temperate in spirit, and calculated to be useful), point out an instance of the extreme carelessness with which bold statements are made by writers on these subjects: but having been there discussed, I omit it here.
There is an error of another kind, small in importance, perhaps, because of obvious correction, but illustrative of the way in which men inconsiderately make statements, when they fall in with their system, in the face of the simplest testimony of scripture itself. In the third and fourth sermons on Daniel's vision of the four beasts and of the Son of man by Mr. Irving, Zephaniah is stated to have prophesied before the carrying away of Israel captive; and it is assumed that they carried the book of that prophet to Nineveh, whereby Nineveh would know of its threatened judgments. The prophet addressed Judah alone, and expressly states that he prophesied in the reign of Josiah (that is, about one hundred years after the carrying away Israel captive). The reason of the statement is to show that God gave testimony to Nineveh and her king, before He judged them He certainly had done so previously by Jonah. The idea is a very laudable one: but, running away with it, we have the following passage in page 92: “Yet God suffered not such a city to perish without witnesses, but raised certain of the captivity to the highest offices in the kingdom.” &c. “There can be no doubt, also, that the prophecies of Nahum and of Zephaniah, which almost solely concern the judgment upon Nineveh, and which was given before the captivity of Israel, were carried with the captives into Nineveh, and there more or less circulated amongst the Ninevites, and especially brought to the knowledge of the king himself; for God is very merciful,” &c. They say much of taking scripture as it presents itself. Who would suppose that all that concerned Nineveh in the prophecy of Zephaniah was three verses, bringing it amongst the many other countries which were to be destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar—the whole book being concerning him, Jerusalem, its present evil, and future hopes; and this, as we have said, a century after Israel was carried into captivity! We take it as showing the extreme neglect of scripture and even prophecy itself, the hurried pursuit of an object in the mind, something brought in at random to illustrate it, without any reference or mature weighing as to whether it is borne out by scripture.
I think the interpretation of Isaiah in the same page erroneous, and the occasion of the error the same: but as this might seem to involve interpretation, I do not say anything of it, though I think the case perfectly clear, and that the simple reading of the prophecy will evince the total inapplicability of the alleged meaning. Another instance, upon which it is not proposed to dwell, but mentioned as occurring in the same book, is in a long dissertation to show that the Greek empire was set up in order to give prevalence to the Greek language. This, though a collateral result, is; I think, a very confined view, and in itself exhibits the absorption of mind into its present idea, which I complain of as so injurious, and, in the case of scripture, so very culpable. But it is there stated, that our Lord and His apostles always quote from the Septuagint. This is not the fact, as has been fully shown.
Again, in the translator's preliminary discourse to Ben-Ezra, we have (p. Iv.), “And to this effect I understand Rom. 8:11There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (Romans 8:1), 'There is no condemnation' (κρίσις, i. e. judgment),” &c. The word is κατάκριμα without a single various reading in Wetstein or Griesbach. Doubtless he had in mind John 5:2424Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. (John 5:24), where it is κρίσις. If this were an isolated act of inadvertency, it might well be passed over; but it is evidence, and accumulated evidence, of great carelessness. And it is adduced on this account, that it is introduced by the author as determining the sense of an important passage, to which, at the time of stating it, it is evident, he could not have referred; not merely from the mistake itself, but because the whole passage (and this is the point I would urge) bears in, a long train of argument upon subjects totally unconnected with the one he is arguing, and in which κρίσις, in his view of it, would have no place or object. That which we advert to is not the casual mistake, but the drawing in a whole passage into a purpose beside its object, through absorption of mind into one particular view.
And in this place we cannot pass over, though it cannot be treated as a mistake, passages in this preface highly injurious to the work and honor of Christ, and in it the just, holy, and influencing comfort of believing saints. It is alike indicative of the same hasty pursuit of a single idea. I shall quote one concentrating sentence; but the observations will apply to the whole spirit shown from pp. 55-65 of this preface. The haste, the very culpable haste (for the promises and hopes of God's people are not thus to be trifled with), is shown in this. In evincing (the truth of which we do not now inquire into) that the resurrection at Christ's coming is the substantive hope of the church, he attempts this by throwing every cloud upon the hope of the dying Christian. “Death,” his words are, “is a parting, not a meeting; it is a sorrowful parting, notes joyful meeting; it is a parting in feebleness and helplessness to we know not whither—into a being we know not what.” This sentence is singularly unfortunate in its statements; and, indeed, scripture and the hope of the gospel are not to be thus made the slave of men's momentary thoughts. “I have a desire,” says the apostle, “to depart and be with Christ.” Death to the believer is not a parting but a meeting, if our central and supreme affections are with Christ. I am not questioning here, be it remembered, the hope of Christ's coming, but Mr. Irving's statements respecting death. Death is not a sorrowful parting, but a joyful meeting; for it does not become us to sorrow as those without hope. For why? Those that sleep in Jesus go to Jesus, and God brings them with Him. For indeed “he that liveth and believeth in Jesus shall never die.” If, indeed, he values earthly things more than Christ's presence, then sorrow will accompany his death. But it is the proper distinction of Christianity to have neutralized that power of death which Mr. Irving is preaching; “for the sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law;” but both are dead to the believer in the death of the Lord Jesus Christ the Savior. It is a parting not in but With feebleness and helplessness, we know whither that is, to Christ. If He be true, we know whither we go, and the way. As to “a being we know not what,” the scripture affirms it really of the state of the risen body, and of that only. “It doth not yet appear,” saith the apostle, “what we shall be,” speaking expressly of that state.
As to the promise, Mr. Irving is writing against his own opinions; for, if he hold that Christ will come again, he believes that He will bring His saints with Him, so that they which are alive and remain have no preference. He is indeed himself witness that Scripture is conclusive as to a paradise for the separated spirit; but he says we know not what it is. Is there nothing, then, in being with Christ the Savior, Who loved us, and gave Himself for us—the hope that brightened the thoughts and quickened the expectations of many a dying and many a martyred saint? Is there nothing in being with Him, to throw holy influence and triumphant character on the relinquishment of this yet evil and Satan-deceived world? Sure I am, there was that in it which made the Apostle Paul prefer death to life; for death was no death to him, but parting from trial to Christ, from perseverance through surrounding evil to that blessed presence, where all doubt, sorrow, and death would have passed away to him forever. He had a desire to depart and be with Christ, he was not comforted only by the building of God not made with hands; for he was always confident, desiring rather to be absent from the body and present with the Lord.
We must say that this is a most unholy misstatement of scripture, and destructive of that which is the glory and influential power, as well of the resurrection of the saints, as of their present hopes; and that, if the Lord's presence be not a paramount blessing, prevailing over death now, it will never be at the resurrection, or at any other time. It proves the folly of man in his thoughts; for, in attempting to show the importance of his views above another's, the sole thing which is of power in those very views and can alone realize them is undermined and destroyed, and this in the face of the fullest and most anxious statements of scripture, and to the dishonor of Christ and the faith of the saints of God, Satan reigns by death; Christ has brought life and immortality to light by the gospel. And to argue from the circumstances of His death is folly; for it was because He so suffered, and (having overcome in full conflict with the very power under which it is here stated we rest) rose again into glory, that we have not that trial, that we are delivered and triumph, and that its power is passed away toward us.
The observations from the Apocalypse are a total misapprehension of its force. This might call for much and varied animadversion; but my object is not to condemn or accuse (God forbid that it should be!) but precisely the contrary. But these are the soft of statements which have awakened the impatience of observant Christians, and occasioned a natural, though indeed an unjust, prejudice against the persons who hold those views they are urged in maintenance of, and a hasty rejection (still more foolish) of the views themselves. For in this they are making themselves servants to the unguarded precipitancy of others, not judges of it, and masters of the truths which they confound with so many misstatements. In a word, they are allowing Satan to do just what he meant to do by the partial ignorance of inquiring men
But it must be confessed, it is a bold word to utter, that when Christ said to the thief on the cross, “Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise” —that which made Paul always confident, giving him, upon the common faith of God's people, a desire to depart—that what the Lord comforted and assured the thief with, and the apostle built on, was “a day of death, from sight of which the soul shrinketh, and a void behind it, so vacant and unintelligible, as not to be available for any distinct end of faith, hope, edification, or comfort.” “And this notion of blessedness with Christ, upon our leaving this tabernacle, is a vague notion which Satan hath substituted.” Christ substituted it as something nearer to the dying thief, when he proposed that on which the writer so much insists; and it was because it was a distant hope, and there would have been a vague void without this revelation, that we were given the assurance that that was revealed in great mercy, which is thus now thrown to the dogs. The hope of the individual is being with Christ; the hope of the church is His coming: doubtless the individual is deeply interested in this hope likewise. On the whole, throughout this preface, Christ's present glory is not duly seen, nor its perception by the believer as manifested by Him, as it is not to the world.
(To be continued.)